About this Show

Today in Washington

News/Business. News.

NETWORK

DURATION
04:00:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 100 (651 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
704

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Mr. Wallis 28, Us 20, Mr. Yates 15, Mr. Murdoch 13, Clive Goodman 6, Mr. Taylor 6, Mr. Davies 5, Rebekah Brooks 4, Wallis 4, Mr. Fedorcio 4, Mr. Heyman 4, John Chapman 3, Europe 3, Hindsight 3, New York 3, Rupert Murdoch 3, Mr. Goodman 3, Mr. Wallace 3, Mr. Sanders 3, Brooks 2,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CSPAN    Today in Washington    News/Business. News.  

    July 20, 2011
    2:00 - 6:00am EDT  

2:00am
post. my professional asession was i needed external help. >> with 45 people in the department, you felt nobody was available to give the expertise mr. wallace would give you? >> not at the senior level i needed. .. [inaudible] >> not at all. i can be very clear, the sort of work i put mr. wells to assist on would be around corporate policy matters. issues of investigation, issues of operational activity. i dealt with my press officers, 45 press officers. >> you never discuss the phone hacking scandals of mr. wallis, is that what you're saying? >> notes. never? >> you must know, surely you couldn't possibly do your job if
2:01am
you didn't know about what was happening in the metropolitan police. on a daily basis someone was giving you a complete set of cuttings as to what the metropolitan police was involved spend i didn't say i did know. i said i never discussed it with mr. wallis. spent so you did know about phone hacking? you did know there were investigations going on? >> i knew the initial investigation was taking place. i knew that it had closed. i knew that mr. yates had conducted that work in july. and i know that in january this year the investigation reopened. >> when you knew what happened on the ninth of july and the eight weeks that led to the issue of the contract, and you knew that mr. yates was conducting that review, and you knew that mr. yates was a personal friend of mr. wallis -- >> yes. >> but you still relied on mr. yates to give you the all clear to employ mr. wallis.
2:02am
>> yeah, i accept the integrity of mr. yates. a senior officer of the organization spent what about your integrity of someone who needs to show due diligence when you signed off his contact? >> i was satisfied that device by mr. yates was suffice. >> thank you. >> on the question, there were three people tendered, mr. wallis' company was by far the cheapest. the specification that was advertised available to the committee so that you can see what was being judged -- >> yes, indeed. a contract of that size could be less by october 3 quotes, central supplies within the metropolitan police. it wasn't advertised.
2:03am
>> i'm just trying to figure out how it was he won the contract. >> i prepared a short specification which i e-mailed to the three people asking them to provide the cost for the work i was looking for, based on an assessment of the around two days a month. >> could you make of able to the committee? >> that documentation is in the police commission now. >> right. >> one other thing, when you employ people or in this case, any other basis, who are they required to provide any disclosure of their other business dealings or connections? >> there is a contract -- i can't recall the details of the contract [talking over each other] someone who worked at the met, you wouldn't want someone who had connections, so there must be some way that you like people
2:04am
to provide a disclosure of their business connections, is that right? >> i know in this case mr. wallis just left the "news of the world." at that stage is looking to obtain new contracts. >> did you find out what other business interests he may have? >> i asked was he was working with and he said i've just set off on my own. i'm just starting this. [inaudible] >> 5000. >> when you asked mr. dh to conduct due diligence, was that the normal process? would you have normally asked mr. yates to conduct that due diligence, how did you select mr. yates for the? >> one, i knew that keeping new in post, in the special operations department would particularly need some assistance of a senior level.
2:05am
so part of this work would have assisted him. so i spoke about him specifically because of his involvement in phone hacking. i was aware of the investigati investigation. >> you thought it was a good idea for mr. yates to do due diligence on a news of the would employ because he had been investigating "news of the world" employees? >> mr. yates is a senior police officer of the metropolitan police. i've no reason to doubt his integrity. >> that isn't what i asked. what i asked was why did you select mr. yates to do due diligence on a new employee that you are considering a contract with? >> because in this phase he was aware, or he had been leading the phone hacking when it was going on, and i thought that was an appropriate place. >> when you selected him were you aware that mr. yates had been a close friend of mr. wallis since 1998?
2:06am
>> not since 1998 suspected mr. yates inform you hit been a close friend of mr. wallis since 1998? >> i believe the last few years, but i -- >> sorry. in answer to ms. blackwood, could we have precise answer. you said to me previously you knew he was a friend be? i knew he was a friend but i did know back in 1998. >> but you knew he was a friend. >> did that surprise you at the time to do due diligence, did you know he's a close friend of mr.? >> i couldn't say he was a close friend, but i knew he was a friend. >> did you think of by not be appropriate for someone who is a close friend or it a potential employee to do due diligence exercise on that potential employee? did you not think it might have clouded his judgment? >> i had no reason to doubt specters by his integrity, and might put them in a difficult decision should he have discovered something? >> i have no reason to doubt
2:07am
mr. yates. >> your integrity and how you, we'll make our own conclusions on that. ms. blackwood is asking you, do you think in hindsight you did the right thing? >> i think with hindsight which i know a number of my colleagues have said too, lots of things would have been done different differently. >> would you reappoint him knowing what you know no? >> certainly not. >> who recommended mr. wallis to you? you say you had a recommendati recommendation. >> i had been out, i'm trying to think him in mid-august. i just found out he was working individually. >> was it from someone from "news of the world" or news international? >> eyed honestly cannot recall. spent you can't recall? >> despite having giving evidence under careful consideration comes you can't
2:08am
recall who suggested that you higher mr. wallis? >> at the end of the day -- >> wasn't rebekah brooks? >> certainly not spent was it someone else out there news of the international? >> certainly not. >> it could've been someone at news international because you said you can't remember the? >> i said i can't remember but i do not believe. >> were you particularly close to the "news of the world" or news international? did your closeness, if you are close to them cause friction with press officers under your control's? >> i read that suggestion. which i am dismayed about to be honest. i placed stories with all sorts of papers and all sorts of journalist. >> were you placing stories, we giving preference to the "news of the world" in placing stories? >> certainly not. you would know different flavors
2:09am
and different interest. >> did you know mr. wallis' daughter worked at the met? >> i didn't until yesterday. >> and that was the first i'm? >> yes. >> mr. wallis' contract ended when? >> on the seventh of december, 2010. >> isn't not the case that he was offered another contract? >> yes. >> when was he offered the second contract? >> the situation with my deputies as i said continued. i had the first contact. i reviewed -- >> look at your notes pleased to get absolute right. how long was the first contract? >> the first contract runs until the 31st of march -- >> when did it start and in? >> it was issued on the first of october spent and and? >> on the 31st of march. >> is the correct -- >> story. the contract i think had a longer potential to but as i said i was initially the option of an extension.
2:10am
>> so the 31st of march and has offered another contract on the first of september. >> he was offered and extension before the first of april, six months. to take it to the end of august. he was bent on -- first offered another six-month extension, et cetera a few days after that i suspect. i think the first of september "the new york times" article appeared on the other side of the atlantic. we will hear that later in the day. only a few days the story developed i think in some ways which asked mr. dh to make statements about some certain factors spent and then you terminated him? >> i laid him on the sixth of september -- i relieved him on the sixth of september.
2:11am
i received an e-mail from mr. wallis to start at 10:00 on the evening of the sixth thing was going on here, i fear this is going to embarrass you and i don't want to do that. so i wish to suspend the contract. >> so he volunteered? >> he got there a couple hours ahead of me to say i'm sorry, and accepted his proposal to release the contract. >> can you clear up one other point concerning and heyman. is made very clear before he went to meeting and dinners and's with news international that he spoke to you and that you said it was fine for him to go to these meetings? can you for the record explained your position? >> certainly, and i will try as briefly as i can. i need to take this in reverse order in the way i wrote to you. first, i became aware of phone hacking taking place was when i
2:12am
return for a period of leave in august 2006. the only dinner that i attended with mr. heyman, during, or before that during, or before that was in april 2006, which is while the investigation was ongoing. i attended that dinner with no knowledge whatsoever of phone hacking investigation taking place spirit and mr. heyman didn't take the investigation was happening even before there? >> no. >> did he go to -- did you go to dinner together? >> yes. >> he was in a major investigation? >> no. i'm not briefed on operation matters until i need to no. >> but these matters were not in the newspaper's? >> no. there was only, it became public on the arrest of -- >> you never advised mr. heyman not to attend any dinners with news international? >> i did not follow the investigation going on.
2:13am
spent we have a final question. >> is it correct that you actually employed mr. wallis before your deputy became ill? >> no. my deputy became ill in the middle of february 2009. [inaudible] >> if it is brief. spent it is very brief. i asked the commissioner about a number of meetings he had with "news of the world" and he told me there was a strategy whereby you would try to reach out to newspapers with particular high percentage of the market, 40% with news international. were you aware of this? >> you use the word strategies. it's not a word i exit. i deal with all of the news and i need to deal with all of them
2:14am
all the time. so the "news of the world" -- sorry, news international newspapers, naturally we would spend time with them. >> i have seen a list of the hospitality accepted by the commissioner. not award ceremonies or parties or things like that, but lunch or dinner, it would appear i might be wrong about this, i've only had a cursory look, that you only went to lunch or dinner with news international organization, particularly "news of the world." what was the strategy? >> i wouldn't know. >> i know. [talking over each other] >> my experience is these news outlets have their own ways of reaching commissioners or police officers. some for dinner.
2:15am
some prefer lunches. some prefer meetings in the office. some prefer having sandwiches. some prefer it with coffee. some prefer it was known. you go with the mood. that was at the met and that's something i inherited. >> thank you for coming in. i'm not sure we are clear at the end of the session then when we started the we may be asking you i can't about these matters. thank you for coming. order. and we have witnessed john yates. can we have the witness, john yates. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] ..
2:16am
it came as a surprise to many of us. i'm not saying it is connected in any way that my call to your office that you announced your resignation yesterday especially when you are reported as saying very forcefully that you had done nothing wrong. we have a copy with the. why did you resign bearing in mind the fact that you were on
2:17am
this case? >> thank you for those kind words. i said in my statement that this has become a huge distraction the same with the commissioner described it. a huge distraction -- i looked at the last two weeks, probably spend two or three hours managing that. no indication at any time for some considerable period that that pressure -- one huge distraction. and to be candid i said and accountable for what has taken place on my watch and ice and lee believe ahead done nothing wrong. my integrity is intact. my conscience is clear. but it is time -- announced
2:18am
intention to resign. >> two issues. one that came to evidence. obviously -- could i start with some interesting evidence concerning mr. wallace? in the public domain and one of the reasons you felt there were allegations swirling around that caused you to be distracted that he decided to implore you, mr. wallace, that he went to you and he was someone -- basically due diligence. having conducted investigation into the news of the world, you decide these matters and as a result of what you said to him, let go have a copy for you because it has not been written down but i can send the transcript. that is why he took it on. if you raised any concerns
2:19am
whatsoever, and -- what do you say to that? [talking over each other] >> to put it mildly -- i did what i considered due diligence. i sought assurances from mr. wallis to the effect that i got a note, is there anything that nick davis is still chasing, you or me or the commissioner and i received credible assurances -- categorical assurances. that is not due diligence. that is lessening of the contract. i had nothing to do with that or the process. that was a matter for mr
2:20am
fedorcio. it was the conversation, i made a record of it. a very short record. i was happy to report that and that was it. that is not due diligence and certainly not recommendation. several occasions in the past five years. i wouldn't touch it or go anywhere near it. >> you have not seen what he said or heard what he said but he was pretty emphatic that he relied on your integrity and that is why mr. wallis -- even at the slightest concern, he left with the impression that mr. wallis did not have his contract. >> not much of the concern 2009. [talking over each other] >> i didn't write anything
2:21am
because i didn't have that in 2009 and with respect to the public domain which is deployment of mr. wallis's daughter. did you have anything to do with that? >> i am happy to talk about this because i am happy to be completely open. i have done nothing wrong. i was at postbox from mr. wallis's daughter from information noted and very happy to give the committee that e-mail which is completely equivocal interest in whether she gets employment or not. passed on that e-mail to the directors and thereafter i don't know what happens. >> it happens all the time. members of parliament employed friends, family, it is just -- in january of 2009, a very good
2:22am
point, this operation had nothing to do -- simply to the postbox. >> you categorically denied to this committee that you secured this job? >> categorically deny and the facts speak for themselves. i have even said in the e-mail please let me know what the position is so i can manage it. completely equivocal ready individual gets that point. we have massive -- that is what we did. i had absolutely nothing to do with her employment. i was simply a post office there. >> your name came up a few times.
2:23am
you were close friends. is that right? >> i became friends with him. it was 1998. it was in 2000. i met him once. i must have met him the next five or six years two or three times year mostly -- occasionally on our own. i would say we had some thought because -- i do not go around to his house on a regular basis to pick him up to go to football. it is mostly with other people. i would see him two or three times a year. he is a friend. i can't be clear.
2:24am
if -- [talking over each other] >> he is a friend of yours. so don't get the impression that we're living in each other's houses because that is not case. [talking over each other] >> what you just said about employment practices. you said it happens all the time. does it really happen all the time? this passes to the director. an organization like this surely has procedures -- [talking over each other] >> telling this committee that you didn't think that it would make any difference? >> if he knew, you would know that he would absolutely say if there was anything improper about this, and he said so, he would have approached the process. he was that sort of person. i know in talking to their individual than the matter will
2:25am
be dealt with with complete privacy and a proper way. the metropolitan police turns over a huge amount and want to see -- it is quite a useful way of getting people into your employment on a short-term basis. numerous people within the metropolitan community and -- people who are known to those people had been employed on a short-term basis and some of these became employees in the future so it is not unusual. >> is that with the public ought to be behaving? >> you just decide the regular way of getting people in. what about the people who don't do that? >> we are turning over -- there are normal processes that happen. it happens in the house of commons that you bring people to work for you for short periods
2:26am
on a regular basis. [talking over each other] >> can i ask about his non disclosure to the prime minister about the contract that mr. wallis had. he researched number 10 saying to you or you saying to the prime minister, should be protected from this information. who is this official who wanted everyone to keep this information away from the prime minister? who was trying to protect the prime minister? >> officials are always trying to protect their principles. there are very rare occasions when the prime minister will agree to that operational method of counter-terrorism. >> the decision not to tell us about it. >> there was an offer in the early part of september of 2010
2:27am
for me to put into context some of the nuances around this language in terms of what an assessment is and things like that. and also officials in number 10 to say should that be desirable i am prepared to do it. >> who is the official? >> the chief of staff. >> to brief him full week? [talking over each other] >> are offered to brief on the nuances, it was a new york times issue. it is not well understood around these nuances. it was simply an offer to explain what scope he meant. >> what happened to the offer? >> it was understandably
2:28am
rejected. >> not telling the prime minister for operational -- >> i wouldn't have told -- wouldn't have disclosed and the operation about this. very rare occasion would be briefed on operation and it would be something catastrophic for national security, it wasn't at that stage. it was an offer to explain -- >> you didn't seek to tell the mayor of london there was somebody -- who you knew has a close friend or whatever. who was formally the new -- "news of the world". >> it would be my place to do it. he was working predominately for the reasons i know we explained
2:29am
to you. some brief support for me as well. why would i -- take my responsibility to brief -- >> >> the previous witness, mr fedorcio, we asked him in effect if questions were asked about mr. wallis the good points have been made. he said no because in effect this had all been cleared by you. >> hopefully my earlier answer explained it. wants we got into -- once we got into the procurement process there was a clear process going. there was proper due diligence as opposed to personal assurances then there was
2:30am
nothing untoward and let's not forget mr. wallis -- we don't know what comes in the future. but keep in mind i will provide -- it was a simple contemporaneously note to say record of that conversation, it is simple. >> what it seems to me is phone hacking has been used in the investigation taking place. you decided in 2009 about the certification. and my right? >> in 2009 i didn't reopen the investigation. >> you describe it to a newspaper has a crack investigation. >> are used the word decision in the light --
2:31am
>> yet in -- [talking over each other] >> in the light of what i now know, fa had known then what i know now and the fact is the news international was deliberately covered up by would have made a different decision and none of us would be where we are today. >> two people have been in prison prior to 2009 for phone hacking and "news of the world" was very much in vogue news as far as tracking information as a result of phone hacking. now the "news of the world" should be taken off in 2009 when you decided -- wouldn't the first question be were you involved in any way? >> i appreciate it looks odd
2:32am
now. i confidently predict as a result of news international a small number of police officers will go to prison for corruption. so simply no evidence against mr. wallis at that point in 2009. the investigation had been carried out by others and it was thought to have been a success at that time. in july of 2009 it was suggested, anything else, you say it was the huge story but it wasn't. it re-emerged with the new york times in 2010 but it is another of those stories that gets -- >> would we be right to come to the conclusion that no questions were asked by you to mr. wallis about phone hacking at the time
2:33am
of the "news of the world"? >> he was never a suspect. >> weren't year recommended -- did you ask him whether he was involved in a phone hacking? >> i sought assurances whether he had anything to embarrass him. [talking over each other] >> mr. wallis's potential contact with the metropolitan post, it was a bank holidays or don't recall, wanted absolute assurance there was nothing in the previous the phone hacking message being reported that could embarrass him or me or the commissioner, categorical assurances. >> the prime minister's chief of staff about the offer that you
2:34am
talk about? >> my discussion in a brief e-mail exchange, for whatever reason in this process, the prime minister wanted to discuss the issue, it is very simple. i can understand it. >> at any point looking for the prime minister, you had discussions -- >> i had met him. >> and mr. wallis? >> no. >> thank you. stephen mccabe. >> was he a friend of yours? and he had been -- where these were coming from? >> perfect that are worked out
2:35am
in retrospect the phone hacking i haven't actually. >> you never did? what you said in that e-mail, quote, have you spoken to mr. coulson since he was employed by mr. cameron? >> i have that at number 10. >> thank you. >> it was probably relatively early on. number two or three. >> about these matters? >> the counter-terrorism about police reform and all those matters that i ought to be interested in. >> have you spoken with mr. wallis before you did that? >> yes. but not about anything -- [talking over each other] >> the evidence you gave to as you mentioned when you did see
2:36am
the review in 2009 you felt that you were doing the minimum -- you had given the terror alerts at the time. can i ask whether you got that sense from the instructions that came from before? >> can i take you back to the evidence from the exchange? you interrupted my flow. i did start saying there's an element of that. i reiterate the point there has not been any new evidence. if i had seen any during the course, we may have reopened the investigation depending on the level of quality of the packing. doing the minimum has been taken
2:37am
out of context. i did qualify and did it separately. i didn't get the full point. it is clear from the transcript that is what are was going to say. >> what you were saying from the instructions is what sort of attitude did you approach with? give it high priority or that you should be critical when you get it done in the timeframe that is laid out for giving the press and announcement later that day? >> there was no time for that. >> you had to make a statement that day. >> a complete statement. absolutely no time frame. it was as long or short as it had to be. i wrote myself a contemporaneous note that they.
2:38am
simply some principles to be adopted in operation carryout and requests to establish the fact -- what approach i should adopt specifically -- this is not a review. study the effect around this case and consider if -- i intend to adopt the following principles and i outlined eight principles. the scale, scope and outcome of this case, consideration of have the advice they provided. consideration of the prosecution team and their focus on a framework of the case and any complexity around the evidence and the ability of the state to go up to 12 months. the level of disclosure reviewing the material at that point. how the tape was opened after the guilty plea and if there is anything new or additional in
2:39am
terms of the guardian and finally out they were managed and the impact of any urgent cries from the statement. so i went through that process. so i accepted it everywhere i can. that is the approach i took. and don't fancy it. actually sophisticated. [talking over each other] >> there were a large number of principles there, the way they relate to 11,000 documents which you admit were not -- >> the level of disclosure, had tried to take view in terms of people have gone to prison.
2:40am
>> 12,000 victims right now and only 12 have been identified? >> the material has been reviewed by counsel. in terms of relevance, accept that but i received it a day later to reaffirm that they have seen all the material and anything else. you can criticize with hindsight but it was not -- a reasonably sophisticated process to go through around an article in the newspaper in which there was nothing new. >> but it was your decision that you were going through this. was not on instruction from the court. was your design entirely. [talking over each other] >> we had this report. we didn't hear from the committee. he was putting you on with no pressure. he did say he valued your
2:41am
integrity. >> 30 years experience in the world -- i have done any number of reviews and establishing the facts. he would expect me to adopt the process that was resilience and reasonably sophisticated. for what we were asked to do that they. this was an article in a newspaper. >> thank you. >> to explain when we started our inquiry in september, cps constrained the investigation. later in july of 2009 when you said just now that the fact you considered, you didn't go to that. but at that time the cps took the committee to prove the
2:42am
criminal offense of interception the prosecution must prove the actual message was intercepted prior to being accessed by the intended recipient. in light of that do you think there was blame between the police and cps? >> no i don't. it is apparent throughout that we have the clearest possible -- that permeates the inquiry. we have written to you on it. i have been bashing by head against the wall. absolutely clear what advice we got. anyone who says the police investigation never lived in the real world, what we did and how we conducted the investigation now and in the future.
2:43am
>> we have a former dpt, you will be off before then by the way. >> thank you very much. >> we love seeing you, mr. yates. >> you refer to police technology being misunderstood and helped as in relation to the word review the last time we spoke. there is new evidence that has come up again and again. you were asked by the commissioners to look at the available material. and in your letters to the chairman you said this resulted in asking senior investigating officers if there was any new information that might require investigation from the new york times. i just want to be clear about this because there may be misunderstandings.
2:44am
in the general public mind we thought there was instruction being given to look at the material available to see if there was anything that shows their to the offenses by other people and if there were victims that were affected other than those who were already identified. is that general public and parliamentary impression? >> not quite clear on the question. >> in everyday parlance we all pause at earlier stagess of the inquiry, get back to looking at all of this and see if there's anything else the uncovered, as broad as that. and therefore anything that was spun toward and could be pursued in a way that could lead toward
2:45am
prosecution should be investigated. >> in terms of looking at what is new or what would merit what we knew in 2009, what would merit that, what would be my level of concern that there is something we have seen, the case that has been to the court and reviewed by counsel and prosecuted. >> but nothing that would say -- in hindsight, really -- [talking over each other] >> just trying to get to the nature of the decision, apparently narrow focus because we pursue individuals -- [talking over each other] >> at the time when you were out side the commissioner -- let's
2:46am
not use the word review, or misunderstanding. did you task the office to do this to look at that and see if there's anything there or was this a narrow look? >> it was a fresh look at the guardian article. it was in 2005. [talking over each other] >> wider than that in terms of seeing if there was anything there. what we knew then. >> i have been before numerous committees. our wish it had been different. >> understood. you would accept many people tell us there's something around and it ought to be brought out into the open somehow.
2:47am
but what you can ask was a narrow focus. is that correct? >> absolutely right. on a weekly basis, very interesting article in journalism which we don't want investigation all about it. we do anything regarding this p
2:48am
>> i became involved in the cas. it's been subject to numerous investigations, reinvestigation. my involvement is about 2005, roughly 2006 onwards. huge inquiry, like 750,000 documents come to light. i wouldn't know. >> cut to the chase. the point was that officers were investigating the murder was
2:49am
himself placed under investigation by the "news of the world." some links allegedly who have interest in the case? >> i'm fully aware of the interest around date code surveillance and all those issues. i'm also aware, there was a meeting back in the yard i think between rebekah brooks, where these matters were discussed. i don't know the outcome of that and i wasn't responsible for the case at the time. >> dgc to find out why this was under investigation by "news of the world"? >> say it again. >> did you try to find out why that officer had been investigated by the "news of the world" at that time? >> no, i didn't. i wasn't responsible for the case. >> you became interested later on. i'm not blaming you.
2:50am
[inaudible] >> good lord. the thing that concerned me and what i discuss with dave cook was personal security. that's what would have concerned me. david would know, we put in place positions for reassurance around his personal security. what happened in 2002, i would not be taking further at that point. >> you didn't see to investigate why his place under investigation by the "news of the world"? >> i suspect it was common knowledge between david and i had taken place and i put in place with david very personal security matters, and relevant advice to assure that he felt comfortable doing his job. >> it was the time he was investigating the particular case that he had come under investigation. he was investigating the daniel morgan case. he launched the investigation. when that happened he was placed
2:51am
under investigation. do you know why that have been? >> i don't know why that happen. it was 2000 i wasn't responsible. >> thank you for that line of questioning. >> can we just come back to a couple of things, please. some things you completed this afternoon and it was effectively news international who was not cooperating that causes us to be where we are here. you except wrongdoers often do not cooperate with the police? >> absolutely except that. >> do you rely on the fact they were not cooperating to blame them for where you are now? >> on numerous occasions, i have tried to explain to this committee that issues around production. i have letters from news international in 2005, 2006, 2009 where they clearly with legal advice have constructed supplies to letters that absolutely constrained the
2:52am
please ability to get their production in order. i'm afraid to me have to listen to me. it is absolutely clear, absolutely clear i cannot -- we prepared a production letter in 2005. the investigation team did. we were told by the legal people, you simply cannot take that or a judge will not accept it. >> they didn't have enough evidence, mr. yates. i hear what you are saying [talking over each other] >> the point is, is they are seen to cooperate and you haven't that evidence they're not cooperating, you cannot get a production order. >> a business does not have to open its doors to the please without good cause. you say they constructed legal audience to impede you but the reality is you should have evidence that he wouldn't have needed legal arguments to deconstruct. you would've been able to get search warrant and have 11,000 pages of evidence with scotland
2:53am
yard. >> the news international letters demonstrates that they are cooperating with police inquiries, and have evidence and there was evidence they were cooperating because they were providing. unless you contrary evidence that they were deliberately obstructing you in anyway, you cannot get a production lawyer. there's lawyers at this table i know who will reiterate that. you cannot get evidence, and i'm one of them. >> the reality is you are seeking to blame the legal process for something that is actually the metropolitan police fault, isn't? >> completely disagree with your. >> can i ask you this quick do you know who first recommended mr. wallis to mr. fedorcio? >> i don't know that. >> you didn't make inquiries about that when you were asked?
2:54am
[inaudible] >> did you make inquiries about mr. wallis? wallis? at all from a mr. fedorcio? deana who recommended him speakers i do not recall how it came in this process in terms of who else on the list was responsible for producing the tendering process. i'm sure he said that. i was aware, presumably before 31st of august, 29, that neil wallis was one of those which is why i saw their assurances. >> been how he came to be one? >> i don't appear. >> you didn't suggest the name? >> that could well happen. it wouldn't have been speeded you didn't suggest you think? >> i can't recall. [talking over each other] he would have been one of them,
2:55am
you know, i can't recall the process but he was certainly because he was a guy that recently left his employment. is just the type of advisor we wanted them. so it's perfectly possible, yes. >> the job for mr. wallis' daughter, you say you -- >> i'm happy to provide enough on that. >> how many times? >> probably, to -- probably two, three, four spirit of your entire career? [inaudible] probably twice a year. probably twice a year. spent so wasn't a particularly busy pressbox. i'm talking about you referring a potential employee to the head of human resources. >> yeah. >> you found that to be appropriate?
2:56am
>> well, i was aware that the head of human resources was seeking short-term placements. i simply forwarded a cd and i've nothing to do there after. >> thank you. >> thank you. sorry, do you say absolutely? >> i did not. right. mark reckless and then bridget philipson and then we will close. >> i think i understand your point about production orders. i suspect details, i'm going to have to show -- state on the right side of the line. but i think mr. ellis' point is didn't have 11,000 pages documents, if you come through those and perhaps journalists might not that have allowed you to get a production order? >> as i said i was responsible
2:57am
in 2005, six, and those who came to the committee, they allegedly didn't do. i can't answer that point. >> or you i meant -- >> bridget philipson. >> the point about the mole care? in the prosecution is a known fact that is to introduce had listened to voice no messages prior to others listen to the voice mail message the? those that we could prove and whip into the sort of process of how you prove it, the access prior to the intended recipients listening to it. there were cases, yes. but as i think i've said to this committee, excuse me if i'm confused, there was only one place we could prove on a technical basis, others had to be proved through a mixture of
2:58am
other techniques to satisfy a court that it's been listened to prior to being accessed. that's what happened. >> so people in this case whose voice no seven listen to? >> yes. >> thank you. >> nicola blackwood? >> give me a chance to clarify comments made by mr. fedorcio in the light of newspaper reports about friendship with mr. wallis, as they been overstated. we were surprised to hear hit come to ask you, he said the reason for that was because you have been involved in hacking and had some expertise perhaps in the problems which might arise. we then asked him did you not disclose the fact that you're a friend of mr. wallis, inhabit a friend since 1998.
2:59am
and mr. fedorcio didn't seem to want to answer that. and advice that he did not know. and i just wonder what your response would be, as i think would be helpful for the committee to know exactly what you told mr. fedorcio in that conversation when you agreed? >> let me take it in stages. firstly, i think i've explained to the committee, i'm not his own people, but the level of content, the level of friendship is nothing like described today. in the observer as it was then. i am pretty surprised that dick wouldn't have known i neil wallis in that sense. but i can't speak, i can't speak for him. so, you know, i would absolutely nothing to hide around this.
3:00am
i've said so on several occasions. so, i have confidence in what i'm saying is absolutely the truth, and it's -- unit, you described it as due diligence. it was just seeking assurances to due diligence is something the press would do. >> if there was additional do didn't -- due diligence? >> i don't know. >> so because he believed that there was an additional process, he didn't feel it necessary to say because i'm a friend, or even an acquaintance of this individual, i might be too close to this and it would be inappropriate for him to do that? >> i wasn't doing due diligence in the sense of the formal sense. i was just seeking assurances. let me be clear. it was not due diligence to be accepted for the then she do due
3:01am
diligence. [inaudible] the prime minister had appointed someone who used to work for "news of the world," there was no reason why he shouldn't have, do you agree with that statement? >> i have nothing to disagree with it. it doesn't give us a level, in the level of assurance, different than the prime minister had. i'm not really sure it's relevant in terms of, we are, we're responsible, the parliament is responsible for this country. we are responsible for investigations. i think if they can give you some comfort in that sense. can i just pick up two final points quick you said in your evidence you are confident that you can't predict police officers would go to present in respect to these matters. >> if the corruption cases which respect for a small, very few in
3:02am
number, probably investigated, i have no doubt they will go to prison step when did you come to that you've? >> i come to the view, if you put a level of investigative expertise and resources around these issues then you tend to get the results. spent the next point is about the beanbags which you mention mentioned. what is the rule about the disruption -- destruction of evidence, how many is the so please hold evidence before they destroy? the last time they were looked at before you put on the database was in 2006. i understand there's a six-year rules. >> it depends. i think it is six, seven years. i would have to check. >> you didn't see them yourself but you understood they were around, is that right? >> yes. >> finally on operation weeting. which is progressing. are you being kept informed of
3:03am
what is happening in operation weeting up until the time your resignation of course? for example, did you know that rebekah brooks is going to be arrested on sunday? >> no. i don't operation weeting complete firewall or on what they're doing. i know nothing of the developments or next developments. >> and what about your future, you have now resigned, no plans to take out journalism as mr. heyman has taken up? [laughter] >> what about "the guardian"? [laughter] on a serious point i have expressed regrets that more wasn't done about those potentially affected in 2005, six and 2009. i've paid a heavy price for it announcing my intention to sign but i am accountable for what took place. i think we have also must remember that it is not the
3:04am
place that have failed here in every respect. it is me the international failed to bite us as they should have provided us in 2005-6. i yesterday said i was accountable, and i need to be accounted. i have done that. i think it's time for others to face up to the response does and do likewise. >> and who do you mean by that? >> i think it is very clear. news international. >> and since you discovered what's been going on, you've obviously have contact with news international in one way or the other. social or mean or whatever. d. make this point that when you see, do you tell them if you cooperated more we -- >> i don't discuss these matters with news international spare but you do think news international should take the responsibility that you and supporters take? >> i absolutely do. >> which means really nation -- >> it's a matter for them spent
3:05am
cannot on behalf of this committee, despite the last time you're appearing before us in your present -- >> is that a promise? [laughter] cannot place america the appreciation to you for the way in which you always approached these sessions? you've always been most cooperative. even richer, that short notice. every one of the commentators, the home secretary and the prime minister have mentioned your work on counterterrorism which i know is your main interest on the work you did in respect, which i think your particularly proud of. and may i on behalf of the committee which is the best of luck. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. order, order. the committee will meet again at 5:30. could ask the committee to stay behind.
3:06am
3:07am
3:08am
3:09am
3:10am
3:11am
3:12am
3:13am
3:14am
3:15am
3:16am
3:17am
3:18am
3:19am
3:20am
3:21am
3:22am
3:23am
3:24am
3:25am
3:26am
3:27am
3:28am
3:29am
3:30am
3:31am
3:32am
3:33am
3:34am
3:35am
3:36am
3:37am
3:38am
3:39am
3:40am
3:41am
3:42am
3:43am
3:44am
3:45am
3:46am
3:47am
3:48am
>> the statement in writing -- >> thank you mr. chairman could we please [inaudible]
3:49am
>> [inaudible conversations] >> we will begin. good afternoon, everybody. this is a special meeting on the select committee. this is a follow-up to the inquiry which the committee held in 2009 on the privacy and level during which we took evidence on the extent of the phone hacking which had taken place. in our report last year we stated we thought it was inconceivable only one reporter had been involved. in the last few weeks it has emerged only evidence has come out which i think was indicated in the conclusion but also
3:50am
abuses revealed to the country is clear of the parliament being misled. we are very conscious of the committee that is an ongoing police investigation and possible criminal proceedings to follow and this committee would not wish to jeopardize that. however, we are encouraged by the statements made by all the witnesses where they wish to cooperate with the committee and help us establish the truth. in the first witness cannot welcome the chairman of the chief executive officer of news corporation rupert murdoch down to the deputy officer and chairman and chief executive of news corporation international james murdoch, and i also thank you for making yourselves available to the committee this afternoon. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we are more than prepared to. >> i would start with mr. james murdoch. he made a statement on the seventh of july in which you stated that the paper had made statements that were wrong.
3:51am
qe essentially admitted the parliament had been misled on what we were told. can you tell us to what extent were we misled when we became aware of that? >> mr. chairman, thank you. i would like to say how sorry i am and how sorry we are for particularly the victims of illegal voicemail deceptions and it's a matter of great regret and everyone at the news corporation and these are standards these actions do not live up to the standards that our company aspires to everywhere around the world and it's our determination to put things right, make sure these things don't happen again and to be the company that i know that it has always aspired to be as for my comments mr. chairman which i believe was around the closure of the news of the world
3:52am
newspaper. >> i would like to say. >> stand closure of the world of the newspaper where i stated that the company hadn't been in possession of the fact certain statements were made in this committee was referring to the emergence of the new facts largely the end of 2010 and is the due process of the civil trials reached the point where dhaka and disclosure and evidence disclosure made it apparent to the company and myself at that time that indeed there was reason to believe potentially more people had been involved in the news of the world a legal voice mail interception from before. that was new evidence or
3:53am
information at the time that post dated the 2009 hearing. subsequent to the discovery of that information in one of the civil trials of the end of 2010, which i believe was the sea and the miller case, the civil trial on the interception that the companies immediately went to look at additional records and the individuals involved. the company alerted the police who restarted on that basis the investigation that is now under way, and since then the company has admitted liability to victims of illegal voice interception, has apologized unreservedly which i repeat today to those victims and the company also set up a compensation scheme independently managed by a former high court judge to be able to deal with legitimate claims coming from victims' of
3:54am
those terrible incidents of the voice mail interception and those are the actions that were taken as soon as the new evidence emerged. so when i made the statement about not being in the full possession of the fact, it was those facts at that point in the future and it was in the due process of that civil trial and the civil litigation process that that evidence really emerged and we acted and the company acted as swiftly and transparently as possible. >> when the committee took evidence in 2009, we heard from the editor, the legal manager of the news international, the news world editor, the former editor and the former chairman of the international. all of us were told there had been investigations and nobody else was involved.
3:55am
it's not correct. >> mr. chairman, the company relied on three things for a period of time until the new evidence emerged. the company relied on a police investigation in 2007 and this is before the recount to take into effect that area this is before i was involved. i became involved in the news corporation and the news international at the end of 2007. in the 2007 period there was a police investigation successful prosecutions brought against to in the tools and the editor of the news world resigned. the company resigned of the police having closed the investigation and repeated there was no new evidence to open the investigation. somebody relied on the ipcc
3:56am
which had a report and said there is nothing new at the time and the company relied on the legal opinion and related to those matters with respect to their review had issued a clear opinion for illegality other than the two individuals involved before. and the company relied on those facts and for the company in 2008 and 2009 and wasn't clear that there was a reason to believe that those members were anything other than federal matters in the past. >> the individuals gave up evidence in 2009 and none of them in iraq that time would have been going on. >> i do not have direct knowledge of what the new and at what time and the critical new facts as i saw them and the
3:57am
company emerged in the production of a documentary information or at the end of 2010, and the duration in 2008 or 2007 and to come clear to the evidence to be there is a matter of deep frustration mine i have to tell you and i sympathize the frustration of this committee it is a matter of regret the facts could not emerge to my understanding faster. >> he made clear it is the case the information we were given was being correct. something established as well as good man was involved in hacking. >> i'm sorry, mr. chairman?
3:58am
>> who else will was involved in the news world? >> i don't think you made it clear earlier mr. chairman that there have been a number of arrests of former news of the world employees. these are matters for current criminal investigations and i think it is understandably a comment in particular a around some of those individuals. >> the investigation since the discovery of this information to find out the extent of the involvement in the hacking? >> we have established -- we've established a group and company cooperating very closely with the police on their investigation. their investigation is broad with respect to journalistic practices at the news of the world and the policy and the direction that the company has given them is to cooperate fully
3:59am
and transparently with the police to provide information and evidence that the company believes and they believe is relevant to the investigations sometimes proactively and sometimes in response to the requests. and again, i think the very fact that the provision of the new information to the police in the first place when there was no police investigation ongoing that then fled to the reopening of the new investigation being established. i hope it can be a testament of some pro-active action and transparency with respect to getting to the right place in terms of finding out the fact what happened and understanding of the allegations that are coming in and moving forward to aid if the police in the successful completion of the serious work they are doing. islamic and the departure from your company in the recent
4:00am
today's of tom crane it's not because any of them acknowledge the hacking. >> i have no knowledge, and if there is no evidence that i am aware of that mrs. brooks or any of those executives had knowledge of that and their assertions certainly mrs. brooks and her knowledge of those things has been clear. nonetheless those have been accepted, but it's important on the basis there is no evidence today that i have seen or have any knowledge of this there was any impropriety by them. >> the different, sir. you have repeatedly stated that news corporation has zero
4:01am
tolerance, is the right? >> yes. >> october, 2010, did you still believe it to be true when you made your speech and said what may be clear, we were to vigorously pursue the trade we will not tolerate wrongdoing? >> yes. >> if you are not lining then, somebody was lobbying to you, who was it? >> i don't know. that is what the police are investigating. espinel but he acknowledged that you were misled? >> very. >> let's take you back to 2003. were you aware that in march rebekah to brooks gave information to the committee? >> i am now aware of that. i wasn't aware of the time. i was also aware that she amended that considerably quickly afterwards.
4:02am
>> i think she amended it seven or eight years afterwards. did you or anyone else at your organization investigate the set time? >> no. >> can you explain why? >> i didn't have it. i'm sorry, i need to say something, and this is not as an excuse an explanation. news of the world is less than 1% of the company and i employ 53,000 people around the world who are proud and creed and ethical and distinguished people and i am watching and appointing people in my trust to run those positions. >> i do accept you have many
4:03am
distinguished people who work for your company and responsible for the news corps. what i am trying to establish is the wrong doing and what was involved at the time. so if i can teach you forward to 2006 when good men was arrested of intercepting voice mails were you made aware of that? >> i was made aware of when they were convicted. >> and what did they do subsequent to the rest to get to the facts? >> we put in place for the investigations and eventually appointed frequently appointed a very leading a team of lawyers in the city to investigate. >> i will come to you in a minute, sir. let me finish my line of
4:04am
questioning what would you personally do to investigate that after mr. goodman went to prison? you were obviously concerned about it. >> can i ask you why did you not dismiss the report following the moseley case? >> i had never heard of it. >> despite that set out for involved. a judge made it clear they settled a black male of the women involved in the case. so none of you have that in your attention for the serious wrongdoing even though the case received widespread media attention? >> i think there's more detail.
4:05am
>> despite the fact the black male can have authority year prison sentence, nobody in your company brought this fact to your attention? >> blackmailed charge, no pity it is to make you think that might be because they would think nothing of it? >> no. i can't answer. i don't know. >> do you agree when he said the lack of action is a remarkable state of affairs? >> no. >> mr. murdoch, a judge found a chief reporter guilty of blackmail. it was widely reported. he said it was remarkable. >> it was a civil case. spec were you aware that news
4:06am
international commission did investigations on e-mails? >> was i aware that news international commissioned an investigation into the news international e-mail, yes. >> you claimed in "the wall street journal" they made a major mistake. can i ask what mistakes were you referring to? >> i think maybe that is a question again to certainly we examined that an account things which we immediately had council with to get advice on how to
4:07am
present it to the police. >> in the written response to this committee's questions, are you aware that news international stated that both john chapman review these e-mails before forwarding them to the news? >> no. >> plebeian the company told you that some of your executives reviewed the e-mails? >> everything had been sent to them. >> okay. since they reviewed the e-mail on behalf of news international, are you not? >> yes. >> you are aware they found evidence -- >> [inaudible] >> and you are aware that he stated he found evidence of the indirect breaches of national security and evidence of serious crime?
4:08am
>> some detail of you would allow me. >> it's your father who's responsible but i will come back to you. >> who was aware of the findings of the international? >> certainly the top legal officer. >> they were not the top legal officers. >> who was the top legal officer? >> chapman at the news international and mr. crone with of the head of legal affairs of the news papers. >> by the findings of your son, mr. murdoch?
4:09am
>> i expect it was my son. i was in daily contact with him. >> okay. when were you informed of the payment made to tayler and max clifford? >> no. >> you were not involved? at no point you knew that they were made payments? okay. from the chiefs executive of news corporation a payment of half a million -- i want you to tell me whether you inform your father that you had payments to the goldman taylor as a result of him being a victim of the crime. estimates of the settlement with mr. taylor, and i'm happy to address the matter of mr. taylor in some detail of you would like, my father became aware
4:10am
after the settlement was made in 2009i believe after the confidential settlement had become public as the newspaper report on the subtle and afterwards, but please understand the settlement an out-of-court settlement of that nature and of that quantum is something that normally accompany our size and executives in the territory of the country would be authorized to make, and that's the way the company has functioned and it is below the approval threshold if you will that would have to go to my father's chief executive of a global company. >> server of your colleagues who asked specific questions so i will move back to your father if i can. mr. murdoch when did you find out the criminality was endemic
4:11am
of news world? >> indymac is a very wide ranging word, and i have to be very careful with the justice that is taking place now. that has been disclosed. i became aware [inaudible] when i heard about them in any case of a receive. >> did you read the last report in m. nisha who gives evidence to the committee.
4:12am
>> i haven't heard that. stacks of parliamentary inquiry had your senior executives in the u.k. guilty of? >> you're really not saying media. >> without your executives guilty of the collective amnesia. i would have thought someone would have liked to bring that to your attention. did they forget? >> no. >> okay. for most of the observers from the 2,009 that phone hacking was widespread. you knew for sure in january this year that the reporter was false, is the right?
4:13am
>> why was edmondson the only person to? >> we have given all our files and knowledge and everything to the place. they have not given us so we do not know what was in there and there was a page, there was a period to be addressed and again this is [inaudible] >> mr. chairman, perhaps it would be helpful to the committee if he would like to go through any of the particular details on why the decisions were made by the management team of the news international and the precise chronology would be more helpful perhaps if i could answer those questions as the
4:14am
chief executive of the regional business across europe i have somewhat more proximity to it. >> by a understand the detail plans. >> it is responsible and being brought about in the company would executive chose not to tell him so with respect to my line of questioning i will come back to you later. mr. murdoch, why was no one fired in april when news international finally admitted that news of the world had been engaged in criminal interception of voice mails? >> it was not our job to get in the criminal-justice. as of to the police to bring up those charges and carry out the investigation which we won hundred% cooperative. >> in april the country invested of liability for phone hacking and nobody took responsibility for it then.
4:15am
>> no one was fired. the aetna added that depend involved in criminal wrongdoing and nobody was fired. why is that? >> there were people in the company who were guilty, and we had to find them and deal with them appropriately. >> if i can clarify, the individuals involved or implicate in the allegations that were there have long since left the company. so much that were still there you mentioned one exit of the business and as soon as the evidence of wrongdoing was from and the protest was set out in cooperation with the police to aid them with any of those things they wanted to do but many of the individuals that were potentially implicated in the civil litigations and potentially in the criminal matters had already left the building and were not in the news of the world at this time
4:16am
and current news of the world executives and journalists were not to their in 2006 and 2007 so some have already left. >> mr. are not, why do you decide to list the jobs of 200 people before pointing the finger at the was responsible for running the company in the time? >> it is natural for people to lose their jobs. we had in this case continuing any effort for those people [inaudible] >> did you close because of the criminality?
4:17am
>> yes, ashamed of what had happened. stick people lie to you and other readers. >> we had a broken trust with the leaders. the important parts [inaudible] >> were you aware there were other forms used by private investigators for the news international? >> other forms of -- to make illicit surveillance, computer hacking. >> i think all news organizations had moved the private detectives to do so in their investigation from time to time i think the legal. >> if it could be shown to you the private investigators working for newspapers in the news international the surveillance of the computer
4:18am
hacking would you immediately introduce another investigation clacks >> we would certainly work with the police and if they want to do if they would do it. >> finally, can i ask when did you first meet mr. alex? >> [inaudible] i don't have any memory. >> okay. thank you. >> again, mr. murdoch senior can i ask you a number not short questions. when did you enter for the last general? >> because i was asked to.
4:19am
>> you were asked to run the back door number ten? >> yes. >> why would that be? >> to avoid -- i don't know, i would imagine [inaudible] >> heads of state managed the front door [inaudible] >> yes. the church of the prime minister. >> it was under the prime minister's instructions you came in the back door cracks >> i was asked if i would please come in through the back door. >> if there was in the arrangement made for his entry or exit from a particular building. >> again, have you ever imposed any -- following the last
4:20am
election. >> to have a cup of tea to support mr. cameron no other conversation took place. >> and that's when you went in through the back door? >> yes. i had been asked by mr. brown several times. >> through the back door? >> yes. [laughter] and my family many times. >> [inaudible] before giving them the support? >> i never guaranteed anyone support of our newspapers. we had been supporting the government come and we changed and supported whenever it was, 13 years ago with the 200,000
4:21am
circulation. >> did you ever report any preconditions on the labor party? >> no. of the only conversations i had with them i can remember were arrived at that euro. >> mr. blair who visited you -- it doesn't matter. >> [inaudible] >> can i also ask it was understood that the fbi are investigating have you commission investigation into these allegations? >> we have received no evidence of that at all and as far as we know -- >> that they do? >> they are treated exactly the
4:22am
same way as here, and i can't believe it happened to anyone in america as well as the news of the world. i don't know. >> if these allegations are true the investigation into them? >> absolutely. >> also you must be qualified on the fact that its cost you and lead for the news of the world. >> trying to build this hysteria all our competitors in this country formerly announced to try to stop us.
4:23am
>> i think it moved that. >> we have been very clear that serious allegations of wrongdoing had been leveled about the news of the world and we believe the news of the world, the actions of reporters and people some years ago have fundamentally tarnished and this is a matter of sincere mind, my father's and the companies. the company's priority very much so is to restore that trust, is to operate in the right way, to make sure that the company can be the company that has always aspired to be and the removal of
4:24am
the offer to make a proposal to make an offer to the shareholders who are not news corporation simply the reflection of that purity of moving forward. >> do you understand the people who have been the victims on the allegations? >> is our absolute priority to lift those. >> what happened at the news of the world was wrong. the and i have apologized profusely for that and i thought i had as well. these are very, very serious matters, and we are trying to establish the facts of any allegations as they come up and we are working closely with the police to find out where they're
4:25am
wrong dillinger was and hold people accountable, and i think importantly as well to the victims of the illegal voice mail interceptions not just that we apologize that we have to admit to the light of the become the company admittedly devotee and we've set out to the appropriate compensation schemes to do that. these are all matters that we are fully engaged in. >> do you accept ultimately? >> no. estimate your response? who is responsible? >> the people speak to the trusted. >> i would trust them with my life. >> are you satisfied of the corporation companies to inform
4:26am
-- >> i don't know anything about that. >> if people were given of the money -- >> people were given money did you not find the appropriate -- >> all of our financial affairs of the public company are transparent and audited and the tax jurisdiction of the company works all around the world or worked transparently and thoroughly and it's an important priority for any business. >> would that include
4:27am
[inaudible] >> the company in their own taxes i can speak for the company's and to the best of my knowledge we have a company that takes tax compliance for dillinger compliance, financial and regulatory transparency seriously and -- >> you are aware of the situation put out by the former miss led. your company [inaudible] why is that? >> i don't have direct knowledge of that. i apologize. but certainly if you have additional questions on that in
4:28am
the future i'm happy to supply written answers, but i don't have direct knowledge and i'm not in the position to answer those questions. >> just a couple more questions mr. chairman. in the news corporation company is the subject of an investigation? >> i have no knowledge of that. i have no knowledge of that at this point. >> are there any news corporation companies of the subject of an investigation by the financial service? >> i don't believe so, not to my knowledge. >> finally, any news corporation company as the subject of an investigation? >> not to my knowledge. we have an ongoing relationship with subsidiaries here but as far as investigations i have no knowledge of one. >> thank you.
4:29am
>> mr. murdoch, you made a recommendation to the board of the news corporation -- you made the recommendation to close on the news of the world as a decision made by news corporation? >> it was the result of a discussion between them and ali and senior executives and the board of the news corporation with to seek their agreement. >> you suggested is because he felt ashamed and not because it is a commercial decision for the news of the world? >> moving on to the financial government, you suggested earlier that up payment to mr. taylor were not notified of the level because of the finance threshold. could you tell a bit more about that? i understand it took you have to
4:30am
agree for the mr. payment. was that the financial level, the managerial decision? >> i'm very happy to discuss and it is a good question. i'm very happy to discuss the matter of mr. taylor. with the adequate settlement with mr. taylor was related to a voice mail interception that had occurred previously and was actually one l.i.e. understand it of the 2007 trial. it's important to think back to 2002 understand what we knew then, what i knew then and what the information was in the context, so it's the underlining interception was not disputed fact. second, it was the advice, further, it was the advice and the clear view of the company that it's litigated that the company would lose that case that was almost certain to lose that case because the underlying fact was not in dispute.
4:31am
third, the companies saw the distinguished outside counsel to understand if the case were litigated and if it were to be last which is the likelihood was the financial quantum would be or what that would cost the company with expenses, legal and expenses and damages and a million pounds or there about four the number of the advice i think it was 250,000 plus expenses plus litigation something like that. >> last, this is in the context of the first half of 2008, and this is my first real involvement with any of these issues where there was no reason at that time to believe that the issue of the interception was anything by the federal matter and was in the past after the successful prosecution of the two individuals as well as the
4:32am
resignation of the editor. so the settlement, the adequate settlement was made in that context and it was within the authority is as i understood news international to be able to make those out of court settlements in due course without going to the global level company. i have the time of the regional head in the news corporation and i directed it was all right to settle that. we did not get involved in any of the negotiations directly about that settlement but i do recall in 2008 those are the things now. >> i would add my son had only been with the company for a matter of a very few weeks. >> i had to come back to the company at the end of 2007 in the middle of december, and i
4:33am
don't recall the exact date but this was somewhere in the first half of 2008. >> giving you were new to the company, what financial payments could other news international executives sanction to people like tom crone or rebekah brooks? >> generally speaking, generally speaking of the way the company -- the way the company would operate and the we any company would operate as within certain financial parameters or planning perspectives. we will look at a budget like a house would manage its budget and say how much money do we have to spend in a particular company or part of the company or department has to spend as long as they stay within those guidelines, as long as they stay within those guidelines to believe that they should be empowered to make those judgments to, you know, spend the money and achieve the and if they can.
4:34am
i don't have it on the tip of my finger the precise financial authority, but i can discuss after the committee hearing what exactly you would like to know and whether it is right to, you know, come back to that. >> what would it take, what level of the financial payout would it take to require those on the board of news corporation? >> i think for the full board is an the millions, but i don't know the exact answer to that. >> de know how much has been paid out to people by the executives? >> paid out in what way? >> paid out separately. stack of legal settlements? i do not know the total number. but are around the world it is customary to reach out of court settlements in civil litigation and civil matters, and it's something that rather than go through the lengthy and sometimes expensive litigation
4:35am
process it is a risk that often entails as customary to reach the adequate settlements in many cases. >> i would add that we have a very sound committee in the corporation. which would [inaudible] outside directors. >> thank you. building on that how was it possible to make payments to people with the don't invoice you were not employed of the subsidiaries? >> i'm sorry? >> how was it possible to transfer funds to people who don't invoice you work or not employees? >> i don't know the exact arrangement of that. i don't do that myself, but i can tell you how that is done but sometimes in certain instances, you know, it is appropriate for journalists and
4:36am
managers an uncertain environment to have the ability to use cash in some instances but it is customary for them to report those and all of the expenses as well as invoice expenses should be looked at and reported. >> things like petty cash. at the moment you don't necessarily -- you just recall the journalists gave it. >> i don't have direct knowledge of all of those arrangements. >> things could be made to family members of those. is it possible others can be used in the company apart from the cash like traveler's checks, vouchers, things used for cash? >> i don't have knowledge of that. >> just looking at some of your page two and page four of your own code it talks about the
4:37am
directors and employees and officers of the news corporation acting for the principle set forth. including the investment partners and standards we've never asked a third party to violate the standards. can you tell me a little bit on the financial side of how you as an organization try to make that happen? >> how would work is each newspaper has an editorial manager that is they have to approve of the claims. and they have no authority and the managing editor's budgets and to do so restricted to do so
4:38am
with propriety. >> the executives make the statement they've provided. >> every employee he come every colleagues around the world of the news corporation receives a code of conduct as a template that has some detail but it's not too much. with respect to what conduct is required -- it's about ethical conduct and breaking the rules and so on and everyone becomes an employee is required to do that and the legal counsel internally also conducts workshops around the world with a staff from mumbai to manchester to those rules and
4:39am
that conduct we try hard to communicate as critically as we can to everyone in the business. >> did in the spotlight perhaps that is not appreciated the attention that you've had without wishing to suppress the journalism would this make you think again about how you approach your headlines that could be people from the hills of 96 to other celebrities or others you think again about what your headlines will say. >> i'm not aware of any transgressions as a matter of taste it's a very difficult issue we have in this country a wonderful variety of voices and their very competitive and i'm
4:40am
sure there are headlines [inaudible] >> if you will from all of the support for us is that it is a business as well as an industry in this country more forcefully about the journalistic ethics about what exactly the code of conduct should be not just for the news international for the subsidiary but also for the industry as a whole and what sort of government should be around this whole area and we welcomed last week the prime minister's announcement of a judicial inquiry and with the journalistic ethics but also the relationships as i understand it the police and politicians and it's a really good thing for the
4:41am
country and all of the interested parties to engage with and one of the actions we've taken to be as productive as we can around this as it's set up something we call the management standards committee located at the management of the publishing company and reports to the independent directors through the independent directors of our global public board precisely to look at this issue of around first the specific issues how we cooperate with investigations and a deal with allegations of wrongdoing and get to the bottom of it but also i think importantly how we coordinate and cooperate and productively engaged in the judicial inquiries and how we start to set a code of conduct and code of ethics that we think it is something that can be for all of the newspapers and all of the industry but also something
4:42am
that really has teeth and kim hold the company to account and is independently chaired the standards committee, and we think it is going to be much better way to go in the future and we would like over the next six months to be judged on the actions the company takes to put that right. >> i would like to say if i made that our apologies for this country does have competitiveness and a very transparent society and that is sometimes a very inconvenient to people, and i think we are better and stronger for it.
4:43am
>> before i bring my next call we can i come back to the news rolled and ask is it your intention to launch -- >> no, there is no decision on that. >> for the moment there are no plans on the title coming out on the tabloid market. >> there are no immediate plans for that. >> they talk about newsroom with the speculation on the title to be reserved. >> i think we leave all those options open. that is not the company's priority now. in the last week it has come up in the company but my father's direction and my direction is to say this is not the time to be worrying about that. the company has to move forward on all these other actions and really get to grips with the
4:44am
facts of the allegations and understand them as fully as we can. >> we still have quite a lot to get through. didnot know why het
4:45am
4:46am
4:47am
4:48am
4:49am
4:50am
4:51am
mr. newspapers. can you clarify why he was asked to leave after 26 years of service? >> well, last week the news of the world, mr. crone was involved over the years, but the company and in the management company believes that it was time to part ways. i was not involved in those discussions with mr. said condit crone. i don't have knowledge of them. >> a final question. the newspaper is carried stories date using international subsidized, coulson was waiting
4:52am
till you are unemployed. >> i have no knowledge of andy coulson wages after he left. >> are you familiar with the term willful blindness? >> mr. sanders, do you care to elaborate? >> it is a legal term that states that could that could have happened should have had the responsible >> mr. sanders, do you have a question to >> i'm not aware of that particular phase. [inaudible] >> we were not ever guilty of that. >> thank you. >> i'm not sure you have
4:53am
knowledge -- the chairman said that we had our inquiry in 2009, the evidence continues international executives was rather hopeless really. they came at the game plan. the game plan was to tell the tellers they didn't know anything. they couldn't remember anything and they didn't know anybody who would know anything. and i want to get off on a reasonable footing of who has advised you and how to handle the session and with her advice was? >> with respect today after scheduling this disappearance, we check -- we took some advice or a what the context of this evening. it's my first time in my fathers first time in a committee like this, mostly logistics and sober
4:54am
court of questions you've asked, but we were advised fundamentally to tell the truth. and to become as open as transparent as possible. and that was my fondest intention and they hope we can show you that if it's happening. >> mr. murdoch, you can answer some questions for mr. watson seemed to indicate you had a rather involved approach to your company that i think the point you made was that in "the news of the world" was less than 1% of your entire worldwide business as though you couldn't really be good to know the ins and outs of a going on. could you just give a demonstration of how many times -- how often you speak to the editor of your newspapers, how often you speak to the editor and the news of the world. >> very seldom. sometimes i would coach the "the
4:55am
news of the world," but just to keep in touch. i read "the sunday times" nearly every saturday, not to influence what he has to say at all. i'm very careful as to process the inquiry. and i'm not really attached. i know that most of the time this would be in the same building. but to say that we are hands-off is wrong. i cannot tell you the multitude of issues that i have to handle every day.
4:56am
>> i lost sight maybe because it was so small in the general frame of our company, but were doing a lot of other things. >> if i can help you out here, if someone had told me you would speak something at least daily, which you recognize that description or would that be -- even have traditionally spoken that number of times? >> i'd like to. >> said the editor of the news is 94 publication, not to influence what they have to say. silly understand that. i am intrigued as to how the organizations go because i would've imagined it would go something on the line on anything to report, you know, anything interesting going on in
4:57am
the world says no, it sounded weak to keep it under 6000 pounds. surely some game as big as that, paints him in million pounds, 100,000 pounds, surely you would expect to be dropped into the conversation at some point. you wouldn't have expected them to say that? >> so if things like that went on the agenda -- sorry? what sort of response --
4:58am
[inaudible] >> genes, -- you may refer to -- >> he would tell you to do the same pound payout? >> he wouldn't tell me that if anyone was due. >> iconology in your view you overpaid, but i can't week to the to mr. clifford in those pieces in that piece, with respect to giving advice of counsel and the executives involved in going back while renewing 2008 in looking at that and remembering bad advice and
4:59am
looking at the context of the time to step back as two years, three years now. it is a decision that given that context with the decision that i would still stand by a think. >> it seems like certainly -- >> apparently there was a contract with rupert murdoch that was canceled. >> i didn't know if you have knowledge of that. >> you were going on? >> it just seems strange to me -- we may come back with some details about that. but it seems to me the later -- the 600 pounds, the billion
5:00am
pounds for 600,000 or 500,000 or even 200,000 or even 50,000. he got 20,000. it seems bizarre that somebody would get 20,000 somebody else gets fun hack to make it 600,000 or a million. and surely you can see that the difference that most people draw is one when it was all out in the open. it was to be kept quiet, 600,000. do not see the two people he cannot it smells fishy. >> mr. davies, and understand that this is 100,000, 200,000 from 600,000. that is a lot of money. you look and say why would a company do that? and i would go back to my answer to mr. sanders question, which was to be precise about the chronology here.
5:01am
mr. davies, i'd like to answer this question, but my understanding is the 60,000 settlements in the judgments which was after it is an important chronology and that the courts and have set a differing standard here. and what we knew at the time was that i had distinguished counsel that if this case is litigated and if we were to lose the case, the company were to lose the case, what damages would we expect to pay? and the company received an answer that was substantial. >> at 60,000 to 600. >> it is important to be clear
5:02am
today. i apologize. it's important to declare the 600,000 or 700,000 included damages, legal fees and an estimation of what it would've cost otherwise if the negotiation understands that. >> respectfully, is important because i agree there are big numbers. >> on the payments he made to your staff -- >> about the trial of glenn cordoning. clive goodman was pleading guilty. did news international pay his legal fees for his trial? >> i do want to be clear about the chronology first. i do not have firsthand knowledge of those times. remember that my involvement in these matters is starting in 2008 in the 2007 through
5:03am
december i was totally focused in my role as chief executive of the public and wasn't involved in this. >> we say that it is customary with employees or with other litigations to pay some set of legal sense is on behalf of those to try to bring all of the evidence two quarts and settle in and that's all they've done in according since any involvement i've had in the knowledge according with legal advice about what the proper way to do things worse. >> i can't speak to the 2007 arrangements. i don't have first knowledge. >> clive goodman employed the services of john kelsey grant. he was fired to be similar to use international news.
5:04am
he's one of the most expensive lawyers in the country is sorted to go to lawyer for celebrities. he seems to me that the journalists on "the news of the world" was pleading guilty here to a crime, used in mitigation, probably the most expensive lawyer in the country from which obvious he was hospitable to suspect that these legal fees for not being paid for by himself, but were being paid for by news international. now given and he was pleading guilty to a criminal act, fun hack income was presumedly leads to cross the conduct, was news international even dream about the legal fees engaged in criminal dignity? something that was clearly gross misconduct. >> mr. davies, i don't have any direct knowledge of the specific
5:05am
arrangements with mr. goodman in 2007, so i cannot answer the specifics of that question. what i can say is that because i've asked the question as well, more recently with respect to the company pays, what contributions to legal fees remake, does the company make and so on and so forth? and i can tell you in asking the question, i have been surprised that the legal counsel is telling me that is customary here to sometimes make contributions of legal custody there could've been a a descendent of related matters and so on and so forth. i have no direct knowledge of that particular instance that you mentioned. if you have any additional specific questions about that, perhaps, mr. chairman we can follow-up with you on that and i'm happy to do that.
5:06am
>> it's all well. these are issues that go back sometime. i'm surprised you haven't followed up on them. >> was their right to clive goodman did news international make any payments at all to does to people following their accomplished? >> at night to answer that question. upon nasty and their legal fees being paid after that time i asked myself the company had made certain contributions to legal settlement. there were legal fees around their nhs -- i was surprised. i was very surprised to find out that had occurred. they were done as i understand it in accordance with legal counsel and the strong advice.
5:07am
>> news international agreed to make it. you send the checks? who agreed to make those papers? >> i do not know who. >> you talk about the managing editor. >> it would've been management to the legal cases i would think, but i think we have to -- i'm happy to go back and look at, but it was not something that came to my attention. >> it was certainly not come before or something to do with the managing editors. >> this but it's been our legal advice, payment on how to handle litigations. and again, i don't have direct knowledge or details on the current status of those, but i can tell you i was surprised as you are to find some of those
5:08am
arrangements have been made. >> mr. murdoch senior come i seem to be getting further review for which i'm grateful. would he have agreed? >> it could have been. >> would've been her could could have been? >> who else could it have been? >> signing checks for approval. >> it would be on distractions to the chief executive officer. >> the management of the time it's a chief executive, mrs. kroc is the chief
5:09am
executive. >> you have to take a day every day after allegations were made about phone hacking. was that link? did he resign? was the hack? would have been? how did he leave? >> that would have been for -- at the time, "the news of the world" matter. >> why did less hinton designed? >> he resign for sure last week around criticism for -- i feel i must down.
5:10am
>> were they asked to leave or did they ask post to leave? why did you not ask for resignation when she first offered a quick >> i trester and i do trust her. >> wide? >> in the event she just insisted. she was a supreme english. >> can you tell us how much all of these characters have been paid off? how much have they been given as a financial settlement of news international? >> you know, i can't tell you. it is certainly be considerable of regular things. >> technically 5 million -- 10 million? >> those are confidential.
5:11am
>> is there any confidentiality and the payoffs that they're not supposed to speak about what happened where their time at your company or what they know? >> mr. davies, the settlement compromise agreement that somebody resign where they do business in circumstances like this, you know, there are some -- there are commercial confidentiality agreement, but nothing that would stop or inhibit the executive strength cooperating fully with investigations are being transparent of any wrongdoing or anything like that. it's important to note that in these agreements they are made on the basis of no evidence of impropriety. and as evidence of impropriety marches, or was there prior to the departure you would have a different piece? that's quite an important point
5:12am
just to be clear. >> a final question is, it seems to be in the face of it that the use of the world was sabotaged for the position that news international, that and the fact rather than her be departure in angst, the news of the world was offering alternatives to try to deal with the whole. do you regret making that decision and telling "the news of the world" to say we better -- in hindsight you we should accept the service in order that pay better would continue and know the people are now out of work were struggling to find a job could find were? >> i regret very much people who will not be able to find work. the two decisions are totally unrelated -- absolutely and totally unrelated.
5:13am
>> when you came into the u.k. instead your priority was with crumbs. >> i'm not sure i said that. >> your miscoded? >> i'm not saying that. i just remember. >> i'm sorry, mr. chairman -- the closure of the newspaper with a history of 160 some odd years, history assab and that is a great thing and something that is a serious matter of regret for us, for the company, but much more serious amount is the seriousness of the violation of privacy, the hurt that certain individuals cause to the vet guns of illegal police my perceptions and their families and really -- i can tell you, you know, abdicated at the time that this is the step we should
5:14am
save. this is a paper and a title that it fundamentally violated the trust of his readers have sent me in that was a matter of great regret, real gravity, but under the circumstances and with respect to the bad things that certain other things that happened at "the news of the world" years ago did, it was really the right choice for the paper to cease publication. now, it is important to note and i want to be clear with the committee on this, that the company is doing everything he can to make sure that journalists and staff at "the news of the world" who at nothing to do with these issues, who are completely blameless and many of these things and many have really done tremendous work journalistically, professionally , commercially for the business that we find the
5:15am
employment for them wherever we can and i think the company is being as generous as they can under the circumstances and being as thoughtful and compassionate for them and their families to get through this. but it is a very regrettable situation and one that we did not take lightly and anyways. >> you have made that clear. going to ask the members. i don't want to cut anybody off, but please -- >> thank you, john. i just went to look at how john opened the session in connection with mr. davies question. there's one key question you need to ask. mr. murdoch, james, through civil action, you've been playing glenda passmore legally for your organization? >> others said earlier --
5:16am
>> let's keep it short. yes or no question. >> i don't know the current status of those. >> had he been paying legal fees during the course of the selections? >> at about the details of the selections, but i do know that certainly fees were paid by the company and i was surprised and shocked to learn that as you are. >> can you understand that people might ask why a company might wish to pay the legal fees of a convicted felon who has been completely evolved the destruction of your reputation? >> no, it's not. i can understand that and that's exactly what i asked the question. it's exactly what the allegations came out a saturday during this? is this what the company is doing? and on medical advice, you know,
5:17am
again, to want to be legalistic and i'm not a lawyer, but these are serious litigation support for all of the evidence to get to court at the right time and the strong advice was from time to time is important in customary to pay codependence legal fees. and i have to rest on counsel's advice on some of the serious litigation matters. >> is the organization still looking for the coffee is quick >> as i said, i don't know the precise data for that now, but i do know that i asked for those things for the company to find a way, for those things to cease. >> what do you know? >> i'm happy to follow up with the committee on the status of those legal fees. >> this is a serious question. mr. murdoch senior, is it not time for the recommendation to say enough is enough? this phone hack that it's
5:18am
basically time for your organization to say he behaved disgracefully. we're not going to pay any more than your cause. >> i would like to do that. i don't know the status of what were doing or indeed what his contract was and whether it still has any course. >> is the organization still paying fees? we still get the instruction? >> provided there's not a breach of the legal contract, yes. >> i just went to refer now to the question of statements for possession of the facts. during the two dozen inquiries, all the witnesses who came to us testified or been intimately involved in particular, a huge triode e-mails that seems over the past two days that dan
5:19am
rather quick to try and distance themselves from that investigation in the newspapers. and stated was clearly that investigation was still a loan. can you tell us about the files e-mails, the third 10 boas discovers allegedly in the newspaper in the offices of harvard and burton? can you tell us about when that was covered, when he first came to know about it -- what is senate? >> i first came to know about that earlier this year and 2011. >> be more precise about the time. >> you got a great grasp of knowledge. >> it would've been around -- it would've been springtime. i do not remember the exact date i was told about it.
5:20am
>> it would have been april or may. and i can try to find the meeting schedules, but it was a few months ago. and i can't speak i should say -- i can take a little bit to it, but has to the activity carried out in 2007, again, it pieces back together from the past. it is before any of a involvement, but the company at the time that you're referring to was a dismissal -- and unfair dismissal case that was brought by mr. goodman and that was the basis for conducting right around the time of the convictions on that period of time. >> despite the assurances of the other civilization. >> it was right at the time the code standards have been talked about before are the 2007
5:21am
business was fair. and the investigation was done were surrounded, but there was an outside counsel brought in. it was hartline and lewis by the company at the time and i understand the legal executives was mr. chapman at the time along with mr. byler who testified this effect and took a report from them and the opinion was clear that as to their review, there was no additional illegality with respect to phone acting in that file. and that was the opinion. and the company really rested on a number of things from then on. i certainly know in 2009 when additional allegations came in the summer, the come they would've rested on a handful of things. >> i just want to go read it today too but was discovered in
5:22am
the offices and when it was discovered. >> in 2010, after the civil litigation had put a spotlight on their too vast, too the company, additional new evidence, new information that had in there before and the police investigation started off, one of the things that went back and looked at in the spring by senior people was that file in a whisper free look that. it was opened up and looked at and it was very rapidly brought to our attention that this was something -- >> when did this happen quick >> again, this is a pro, make a mature than that. >> who looked at these? >> on the side -- the people managing the work on behalf of news international from early this year would have been led by mr. lewis. that's correct.
5:23am
>> and what is in that file? it's been reported as a collection of 300 e-mails a looseleaf? what is this? >> as you know, there's an on going criminal investigation and it could be wrong of me to talk about specific information or evidence that is subject and could make problems for the police in doing the important work that they are currently doing. >> if you please tell us e-mails, ring binder, looseleaf -- what is this? >> is paper. i mean, there were some documents -- >> i have not read it all, but something senate had been showed to me. >> what was her reaction? was their reaction used when you first read some of these
5:24am
e-mails? >> i try not to. >> but what do you do? >> my reaction immediately was to agree with the recommendation of the executives involved and bring to the attention of the police with respect to their ongoing investigations or perhaps new ones. >> when was it given to the reporters? >> i believe is in june after we informed the board of the company as well. >> i believe it was june, yes. >> "the news of the world," great newspaper paints the picture on the 10th of july from this file from gatekeepers to name them as alex moran checked, greatness due, clive goodman, james weber. do you recognize some very from the file teshuvah look at?
5:25am
>> respectfully, i would ask you to please understand the detailed questions that any of the evidence, information we've tested the police in relation to their ongoing criminal inquiries are difficult for me to answer and i would appreciate it if we could allow the police to undergo the important work that they are undergoing. there is a process that is important. we are cooperating with it, providing information on a regular basis as needed by the police are they really believe that we have to allow the police to conduct their investigation and hold the people who did wrong to account in this area. >> all respect that. >> if i could comment on anything, it could result in people. >> i will respect that the descriptions of the press that
5:26am
actually on the record, including they do mention the e-mails, but i wouldn't expect you to comment on that. i will now just turn to the latter that is provided to us by rebekah brooks as evidenced during inquiry that this will produce nothing more. that letter comes from the sun partner i mentioned the e-mails being reviewed by the coulson, admit them, delete friedman, joel stenson and nothing had come to light in that review that would contradict duty to the report of working.
5:27am
knowing what you know now, from what was discovered, have you looked back in detail at the basis on which they wrote that and why they gave such a clean bill of health. >> all i can say is that having direct to -- how they look at some of the things and not in the advice of the senior people inside, the company more recently went and looked at that with the view of the company self-evidently that it was right to bring it to the attention of the police and then go forward. and that opinion from the council was something that the company, you know, rested on. it was a clear opinion about a review done about those records and in addition, in conjunction with the police continued to say
5:28am
there was no new evidence and no reason to open a new investigation in conjunction with the pcc, saying they had done their review and done their inquiry and there is nothing new there, that was a subtle matter. it was only really when new evidence emerged that those 30 things begin to be under march. >> in the fall of to the recession, do she complied with the information given to the totality of information in much more detail to include >> if there's additional detail required around legal instructions, we will come back with a way to satisfy you with information that she'd like to have. >> clearly, we started in a report that this view coincided not so much with the arrival, but the timing of the industrial
5:29am
tribunal actions that clive goodman picked the question of why the six individuals who name that. do you know why it was the six individuals? >> i don't know. i wasn't there at the time and i can't say the circumstances, conversations that people had in the terms of reference of that, but it was viewed as something that would be -- it had to be after-the-fact but that was coming in now, had been a fair outlook that information based on that review >> and hate site, you can say -- we can all say if somebody would look at us for something that wasn't known yet at the time, but i can't comment on why this group was what it was.
5:30am
>> the criminal convictions, clearly were saddled and therefore we don't know what they were planning to serve. you know these allegations they were making? we can only imagine such and such. >> i think many of these individuals you mention are currently subject to criminal investigation. some have been arrested recently. these are important matters and i do think it's important that i don't stray into commenting specifically about individuals or allegations. >> do you satisfy yourself as to what clive goodman was alleging in discussions and negotiations that led up to the sentiment
5:31am
that bought tribunal proceedings against them. have you satisfied yourself? >> i am not aware of allegations at the time. a nasty goodman come again in 2000 for every spare, it is manders handing that is what harper and lewis were helping to do with them that opinion to satisfy the current me and the company arrested on that opinion for a period of time. >> i think you'd like to take the opportunity to resolve this matter as an accurate portrayal of what went on. >> i think it is something -- i'm glad you asked because it is a key bit of outside legal advice and senior counsel that was provided to the company that he rested on.
5:32am
i think it goes some distance in explaining actually why it has taken a lot of time for new information -- they think it's important -- it was one of the bases for which people sort of push back the company made against new allegations. it was one of the pillars of the environment around the plays that led the company to believe that all of these things were not of the past in new allegations -- >> a question about the difference, mr. murdoch. there is evidence given to this committee and there is not one reason about criminal investigation. would you like to withdraw? >> respectfully, i am not aware of the legal technicalities of withdrawing that were submitted on the record. i think it is a relevant document in trying to understand how international was thinking at the time. i would say no, but i can come back after taking counsel and
5:33am
see this a better idea to do it. >> i want to know what i was a given time, but her humor questions. as you described, the e-mail investigation was carried out and overseen by joan chatman and the human resource her. is that your understanding? >> pardon me, what is the question? >> you described to us as it is carried out by the i.t. department and overseen by the director of legal affairs, john chapman and the human resources personnel direct your -- >> that is my understanding. >> can you tell us a john chat and has left the organization? >> john chapman and the organization decided it was a
5:34am
mutual interest to part ways and i think one of the pieces here as well as for -- and i think this is important. many of the individuals, even if there is no of wrongdoing or anything like that, no evidence of impropriety come in many individuals have chosen that it's time to part ways. >> i was not involved with the discussion. >> the file that is do they -- >> i do not have that. >> mr. crone left the company some time ago. he was the direct duress human resources. i am not sure, but he left every year or ago i think.
5:35am
i can follow up to him status. >> quickly to the witnesses that came to us, again, in respect of the file that you discovered this year, regarding sub six, when did he become aware of these e-mails and papers? clearly when did the evidence -- >> i cannot speak to mr. hinton's knowledge. are you referring to 2011? >> this techno/-- >> in 2007 -- i can't speak to his knowledge, but i would -- i know that mr. hinton was aware of the work that had been carried out in a out in a think he is testified to this committee to the effect. >> had the last end? mr. burdick, have you asked him
5:36am
whether he knew? >> no. >> why not? >> which documentary talking about? >> you discovered april, may-- >> i don't think it, it you know, i have not asked him, but he also think that he is testified that is the chief executive at that time would not have been asked acted necessarily to read x hundreds or thousands of e-mails they are, but would rely on the opinion of counsel about what they've done. >> i cannot speak to other individuals knowledge in the past. i simply don't -- i simply can't speak for them. >> that's the german pronunciation, sorry.
5:37am
>> saying goes. i can't speak. >> rebecca brooks. >> i simply cannot speak for mrs. dirks when she was chief executive is one of the people who brought it may attention is a new thing. >> let me offer this questioning. i'm going to wrap up, but we have left now with a situation where you come having looked into this affair, having cooperated with police cannot tell us who launched the file, who was aware of its contents in who kept to you from being in full possession of the bank, evidence that clearly contradicts any assurance we were given not in one, but two committees with the inquiries.
5:38am
that's unsatisfactory. >> i can say that the company at the time engaged in an outside law firm to review a number of these e-mails are provided to the law firm as i understand it. they reviewed an opinion piece to the company of a respected -- the opinion was clear in the company on that. i cannot speak to individuals knowledge of different times because they simply don't know. what i do know is the company rested on not coming rested on the fact the police told us there was no new evidence or reason for new investigation of rested on the opinion that there is no new information and no reason to carry further. and it wasn't until new evidence emerged from the civil trial, civil litigation going on that the company immediate the went to the police, restarted the.
5:39am
in the company has done the right wing. >> this was line in your session all the time. it's not simply the litigation. mr. murdoch -- >> i'm sorry, may i? >> yes. the select data in connection with the new would be started terminal investigation. these are serious matters and we take them serious. when it them serious. when it them serious. when it and was deemed these things we immediately brought in additional counsel, lord mcdonald who i believed you mentioned earlier to help advise the company and with the appropriate way forward in terms of full transparency cooperation with these investigations were. they're very serious matters in the company took them very seriously. >> just two questions. >> the situation, where we are
5:40am
now here, not knowing what these international news of the world was consistent in keeping that file containing having the newspaper and when we knew about that file, evidence clearly contrary, not only comes of that evidence it would appear that his leg your trusty date over many years. to find that satisfied jury to stage the defense? >> now, i do not. >> what you think the company should do for the involvement? >> well, mr. chapman has left us
5:41am
he told mr. lewis that we immediately signed the leaflet vice to go to police the case and how we should present it. >> with the lawyers, with the law firm would've had a reason to go in real academy. again, dpu is very, very clear based on the review that that was done and as soon as there was a new criminal investigation, it is deemed appropriate and immediately donned. >> u.k. press the point. my final question, mr. murdoch, given the picture that's being painted of individuals on the new stack, asking for private investigator, do you think it's possible at all at the editor of
5:42am
your newspaper would not have known about these activities? do you think that's at all possible? >> i can't say that. i presume coming judicial proceedings, that's how i can tell you, except it was my understanding that should better not say, but mr. miler, appointed by mr. hanssen didn't know what was going on and he commissioned not inquiry. now, that is my understanding of it. i cannot swear to the accuracy of it. >> thank you. we've been going for two hours
5:43am
now. >> what we'd like to know i'm very familiar could you paint a picture of the week's operation? were. were you closely involved? >> my involvement was overseen the region of europe in a shed, just to be clear in 2008, starting as chief executive for europe in a shack in the european television business can the u.k. publishing business. one title of which is the news of the world. so i can't say that i was ever intimately involved with the workings of the news of the world. >> what results come to you with
5:44am
the application? did you expect we are a week? i know that rupert was murdoch was far removed. >> i mean, these are enterprises , sales and advertising figures and personnel numbers and all of those things are relevant. managers look at those things. >> are we have some questions that have been answered already, that when it comes to legal issues of a trend, but that is taken outside of the management each group of companies have their of companies have their something doesn't go into the
5:45am
paper that's going to be wrong, et cetera. it's right and then something doesn't go into the paper that's going to be wrong, et cetera. it's right and then it's wrong. they each had their legal resources and were very involved as well as the counsel's office in the newspapers. >> so, the editor -- >> the typical weeks, every day in munich, all day in italia, we had a very particularly difficult situation, a particularly tricky impairment. >> became clear from the first couple of questions that you've been kept in the dark quite a bit on some of these instances.
5:46am
.. and large companies the management of which is delegated to managers of different companies within the group and so on and so forth, and i think that my father or myself is different than the management of running of these businesses up and delicate and often to the
5:47am
chief expected of a different company or an editor or managing editor and decision making has to be there. there are thresholds, materiality if you will, things have to move upstream and brought to the attention from a financial threshold point of view i think we addressed that earlier with settlement, an out-of-court settlement with mr. taylor but also from the standpoint of things like alleged criminality in violation of our zero own of code of conduct and the internal audit function as well last the audit committee and the senior executive of the committee are expecting to be made aware of as they were in the case of the criminal prosecutions in 2007. >> but, you know, as what of your efforts were made, you
5:48am
know, we reached dhaka crisis -- who do you hold responsible for that failure? >> you are saying people should have told you, you are saying not that they should have told you but [inaudible] >> i think it's not to say -- i'm not saying somebody that should have told me to my knowledge certain things were not known, and when the information came to light especially with my knowledge of these events and the understanding of a new information came to light the company acted on it in the right and proper way as the company could, but it's difficult to say that the company should have been told something if it isn't known it was a known fact to be told.
5:49am
now, i've been asked today about when and i can only act on what they've told me or what they've told you in the previous hearings, and i know -- i understand completely your frustration about this. you can imagine my own frustration in 2010 when the civil litigation came to the point of these things were out, and suddenly realized that actually the pushback or the denial of the veracity of allegations that had been made earlier particularly in 2009 had been too strong, and that's a matter of regret because all the facts were not known when that was done, and that is a matter of deep regret, and it's why we are here today trying to be as transparent as we possibly can. >> this is a rhetorical question
5:50am
because [inaudible] the fact such employees over the years and mr. rupert with these to look after rebekah but there was another criticism that the time in the financial crisis that it was nepotism in retrospect i know the answer but do you regret -- to you regret that it has become [inaudible]
5:51am
>> the agreement including my son not just their committees but outside has made the conclusion that he was the right person. the president doesn't feel that. when he left to go to why promote him to go take charge of much wider responsibilities we had calls from many who said it was a terrible thing to take him away because he does such a great job. >> the ability, the fact you didn't know many about so many of these that went on if that is
5:52am
made more likely because of the founding history i'm talking about people that were members and became friends. you don't think that -- >> i don't think for a minute speech [inaudible] he certainly did not know of anything. >> before i address my questions i want to make sure as previously declared to the committee that my wife is an employee of the corporation and never worked on the campaign i just want to share that to you before any questions. you said early on the society do
5:53am
think it's right people can expect the society on that? >> no. >> where do you think the limits of that flight? in the investigations for example, banking records were used one of the witnesses were relevant to their investigation. what extent do you think the use of confidential, private information using records and hacking is permissible in the news story? >> i do believe that investigative journalism is competitive and goes to an open and transparent society as that may be too many people, and i think we are a better society because of it. we impose more on the society
5:54am
than even the united states. >> where do you draw the line on that? what boundaries -- >> we thought it would have been a terrible outcry when, i'm sorry to say this and i don't know the circumstances anyone else around here but when there's a series of stolen documents of the expenses of of course a huge outcry none of which i think has been properly addressed. we ought to look at the most open society in the world, singapore, where there million dollars a year and the prime minister a lot more and there's no temptation and it is the
5:55am
cleanest society and find anywhere. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> i mean that seriously. it is ridiculous. >> may i add it's a good question and a really important question, and i understand it's going to be one of the subjects of the judicial inquiry which the prime minister announced last week, which as a company who immediately welcomed, it's a question of public interest, the question of what is acceptable and what isn't in terms of investigative techniques is an important one but let me be clear the conduct of news corps globally for our employees and journalists who are otherwise very clear that breaking the law is a very serious matter and should be people who are lawbreakers brought to account, and the matter of something like phone hacking or payments and things like that, we just don't think they should have anyplace
5:56am
in our business. >> so you would be very clear that within your company, organization, they should have been aware [inaudible] >> i think after -- i think after the -- particularly in light of the successful prosecutions and convictions of the individuals involved in 2007 could not be taken more seriously, and if new evidence emerges, and has it has in cases, the company acts on that very quickly. >> to what do you think a -- organization people tell you things they think you ought to hear and people that have been trusted advisers over the years with olden formation -- withhold information? >> not my best advisers, certainly. you should hear the conversations that come into my office over time.
5:57am
>> [inaudible] >> some crazy ideas brought against me. >> we are a very big company. i'm sure there may be people you've heard of, that would be human nature and it's up to me to see through that. >> there is pressure on senior managers to get the teams to react to each other and in the organization that leads them to take risk and clearly in the case of news of the world push boundaries of the law. >> i'm sorry? >> there was a pressure on editors who take risks in the news of the world and the action of wrongdoing. >> i think it's terribly wrong. there's no institution affecting
5:58am
law at any time. i think they talk all newspapers when they reached a campaign. >> to further questions. >> i just want to say i was brought up by a father who was not rich but was a great journalist, and he, just before he died of wrote a paper specifically for the chance to do good, and he did what was most proud of which he was hit in this country for many, many years was to was to expose the scandal of the delivery which i
5:59am
remain very, very proud of. [inaudible] question of a family business. i would love to see my sons and daughters follow if they are interested. >> rupert murdoch, use it to have had meetings with friends in your career it appears after -- >> [inaudible] >> well, you said you were aware? >> i was aware of the situation and in the aftermath of there were reports and investigations in the committee which a lot about them today. did any senior politicians you were in contact with at the time raised the concerns about phone hacking --